Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
's plan to avert the fiscal cliff. guess what, the white house rejected it, calling the gop proposal unbalanced and not serious. translation? no tax hikes on the wealthy so democrats said forget about it. we thought you should take a look. it totals $2.2 trillion in deficit reduction over ten years. the part that stood out to us was $600 billion in proposed savings in medicare reforms. how? in part by raising the age of eligibility to 65 to maybe 67. turning down the gop proposal, dan pfieffer said, quote, it provides no details on which deductions they would eliminate, which loopholes they will close or which medicare savings they would achieve." let's head now to the white house and dan lothian. the white house will not offer a counter proposal, right? what's going on here? >> reporter: well, you know, i think the white house is digging in. the president said early on in this process that he would only sit down and really move forward, negotiate on this in any meaningful way if the tax hikes for the wealthy expired. and republicans have been pushing back on that -- tax breaks rathe
it comes to taxes. as you all know by now house republicans sent in a fiscal cliff counter offer yesterday but the white house is calling it no good. i want to give you an idea of where the two sides stand right now. boehner's new plan would raise $2.2 trillion. now it would extend the bush tax cuts for everyone and yes that does include the top 2%. and it would instead raise $800 billion in revenue from so-called tax reform and that's what we mean when we talk about capping deductions and closing loopholes. the rest of the money comes from cuts to both mandatory and discretionary programs. now to recap again on the president's offer, he wants to raise $1.6 trillion, that's double boehner's amount on the rich an and he's asking for more than $200 billion in stimulus spending and promising about $400 billion worth of cuts to social programs. now obviously those two plans have very little in common. neither side is budging when it comes to their demands on taxes. but now here are a few problems with boehner's proposal.
to garner public support and back republicans into a corner as fiscal cliff negotiations continue. tim geithner went up to the hill yesterday and laid out the president's offer. this is what it looks like. the goal is to get to $1.6 trillion in revenue. letting the tax cuts expire for the top 2% and then raise capital gains. that would bring in $196 billion. and then the tax code over overhaul, and extension of unemployment benefits and more stimulus spending. republicans for their part dismiss the offer immediately calling it unbalanced, and unreasonable. so the question is what kind of leverage do republicans have at this point? talking points memo notes that they do have control over whether or not we raise the debt ceiling which is something we have to do in the next few weeks or so. while it does not factor into the mass that is considered right now it does give house speaker john boehner program cuts like entitlement cuts back into the conversation. we're back with the show stay with us. as i looked out across the battlefield at antietam. i saw the future of one great nation. but
given us his balanced plan to allegedly avoid the fiscal cliff. he wants to raise taxes by $1.6 trillion. he wants another stimulus package of $50 billion. he wants the authority to raise the debt ceiling without asking congress for approval. say it isn't so, mr. speaker. this tax hike will hurt small businesses which provide 67% of the jobs in this country. that may fund the government for a short time. then, what's the plan? stimulus 2.0. because the first stimulus worked so well? that was a disaster as well. we have a $16 trillion deficit, and the president wants to spend more money. are you kidding me? spending is the problem. we don't need more of it. lastly, he wants the power to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval. the administration cannot issue an edict like a money monarchy. congress, congress, congress is in control of the purse. we have gone wild and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. quigley: i ask unanimous consent to address the house
off the fiscal cliff. we have people out there trying to undermine our way of life. there is a lot to be afraid of -- al qaeda coming back to our shores, recruiting american citizens to help their endeavors. i hate to say it. in every war we have ever been in, there have been occasions where americans joined the enemy. and in world war ii, that happened. you had german saboteurs land in long island, aided and abetted by american citizens sympathetic to the nazis. all of those american citizens in in re curran were held in military custody and tried by the military because we have long understood that when you join the enemy, that is not a crime but an act of war. we have very bad people who get a right to a jury trial. i will be the first one to say that when you go to court, no matter if you're the worst terrorist in the world, you will get a jury trial, you will get a lawyer and you will have your due process rights. but the difference that i'm trying to inform the body of, when you're fighting a war, the goal is not to prosecute people. the goal is to win. and how do you win a w
have the fiscal cliff issue that is are fwfer congress and i think it's a real open question about whether we're going to have a politically induced recession. we're 40, 50 days away. you see a lot of turbulence in the markets over the next months but this is a political crisis that is going to be bring about an economic crisis if it doesn't get solved. but for the entire history of the country people do profoundly disagree with each other, have been and sometimes don't like each other very much have been able to sit across from each other and do the business of the american people. and that's what the moment requires now. on the question of screaming at each other we should understand that there are tremendous market incentives for people to go on tv and attack each other and insult each other verbally and you make a lot of money doing that. for the most part, moderate reasonable voices aren't rewarded with media platforms in the country anymore. and you see a tone and i think that this is a larger cultural issue. it manifests itself in politics but i don't think politics drives i
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6